Advance excerpts are out. Looks like interview #2 is domestic, focused on the environment to some extent.

GIBSON: Let me talk a little bit about environmental policy, because this interfaces with energy policy and you have some significant differences with John McCain. Do you still believe that global warming is not man-made?

PALIN: I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet -- the warming and the cooling trends -- regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut down on pollution.

GIBSON: But it's a critical point as to whether or not this is man-made. He says it is. You have said in the past it's not.

PALIN: The debate on that even, really has evolved into, OK, here's where we are now: scientists do show us that there are changes in climate. Things are getting warmer. Now what do we do about it. And John McCain and I are gonna be working on what we do about it.

GIBSON: Yes, but isn't it critical as to whether or not it's man-made, because what you do about it depends on whether its man-made.

PALIN: That is why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now.

GIBSON: But I, color me a cynic, but I hear a little bit of change in your policy there. When you say, yes, now you're beginning to say it is man-made. It sounds to me like you're adapting your position to Sen. McCain's.

PALIN: I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.

GIBSON: ANWR. You favor drilling in the Arctic National Refuge. He does not.

PALIN: I sure do.

GIBSON: You changed him on that? He changing you?

PALIN: I'm going to keep working on that one with him. ANWR, of course, is a 2,000-acre swath of land in the middle of about a 20 million-acre swath of land. Two-thousand acres that we're asking the feds to unlock so that there can be exploration and development.

GIBSON: So, you'll agree to disagree on ANWR?

PALIN: That's exactly right. We'll agree to disagree, but I'm gonna keep pushing that, and I think, eventually, we're all gonna come together on that one.

Because I feel strongly about GW and because Bush paid lip service during his first run for President the first term only to state categorically otherwise in his administration, I do not trust the Republicans to actually move on this with anything that represents a solution.

It is nice to know that Palen can follow orders but her reversal does not seem to come from an understanding of the science merely an adjustment in her political line.

__________________Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken

PALIN: I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.

Well, if you read the question, Gibson was accusing her of changing her opinion solely to fit McCain. (Which was a fair point btw) Her response was basically that she has never had a firm 100% opinion on man-made impact, so I guess she is saying it was new evidence that has swayed her.

__________________ how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb? HOW MANY?! none they just sit in the dark and cry

She's saying: "Listen, you fuzzy little shithead --
I've been ****ed around, in my
time, by a fairly good cross-
section of mean-tempered rule-crazy
cops and now it's MY turn. "****
you, officer, I'm in charge here,
and I'm telling you we don't have
room for you."

Well, if you read the question, Gibson was accusing her of changing her opinion solely to fit McCain. (Which was a fair point btw) Her response was basically that she has never had a firm 100% opinion on man-made impact, so I guess she is saying it was new evidence that has swayed her.

She points to the obvious affects on the Alaskan state as the evidence of warming but she dodges finding human activities in production of Greenhouse Gases as culpable. Instead she is willing to impugn cyclical event without even pointing to scientific explanation for what those cyclical events could be. It is no evidence of scientific eureka moment. It is merely a backtracking to meet the feeling that echoes most Americans understanding. No different than the lip service by Bush in his campaign.

__________________Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken

She points to the obvious affects on the Alaskan state as the evidence of warming but she dodges finding human activities in production of Greenhouse Gases as culpable. Instead she is willing to impugn cyclical event without even pointing to scientific explanation for what those cyclical events could be. It is no evidence of scientific eureka moment. It is merely a backtracking to meet the feeling that echoes most Americans understanding. No different than the lip service by Bush in his campaign.

I just want to know how she plans to alter cyclical events, ask God to alter them?

It's a setup, McCain is going to flip-flop on this in a major PR move. She's the pretense for why it's not a "flip-flop".

That may be. The other possibility I see is that she actually believes in her stance, and McCain's is asinine. And it's a safe place for her to not flip-flop. After all, she is now the only candidate on either party's ticket who favors drilling in ANWR, and she is the governor of Alaska. Who's going to challenge her on this, Obama? He knows he can't win on this issue with the American people.

That may be. The other possibility I see is that she actually believes in her stance, and McCain's is asinine. And it's a safe place for her to not flip-flop. After all, she is now the only candidate on either party's ticket who favors drilling in ANWR, and she is the governor of Alaska. Who's going to challenge her on this, Obama? He knows he can't win on this issue with the American people.

If I was McCain I would be using a food tester when Palin is around, it is easy to make a 71 year olds death look natural.